Sweet Science
Many of you out there use the sweetner Splenda made by Johnson and Johnson, among others. It is touted as being made from real sugar and therefore better than other sweetners, such as Equal or Sweet n' Low. "Made from sugar, so it tastes like sugar" so the ads wizard would have us all believe. This much is true; it is partially made from sugar. Sucralose, the chemical name of Splenda, is made by taking sucrose (C12-H22-O11, thus making it a disacchride) and adding Chlorine to a labratory grown sucrose molecule (C12-H22-O11-Cl3). Yes, the sucrose is not the stuff that is grown on the cane or in nature, but cooked up in a lab. Of course, a lot of fine things are cooked up in labs, like penicillin, sulfa, and many others. But, this is a sweetner that has come under a lot of fire from all kinds of groups, everyone from sugar growers, health celebrities to the local neighborhood New Age guru type. So what's the deal with it?
Well, one of those leading the charge against Splenda is Dr. Joseph Mercola, author of a couple of health books and is the darling of anti-establishment health gurus. The good doctor goes into his dislike for Splenda here and attacks the studies that have been quoted when proponents claim it is healthful (not healthy, a person is healthy, a thing is healthful). He notes that only 36 humans were tested for splenda effects and "worse" only 23 of them were actually given the real deal (aside: wouldn't this be a time NOT to use sugarpill as a placebo?). Apparently, the learned healer forgot the basis for any good medical experiment, the control group. He points out that the studies were short term and didn't test for human tolerance to sucralose, only for tooth decay. He points out any number of other statistics on his page and finding the sources is a problem. And there is something about the doctor. He's not an MD.
Dr. Joseph Mercola is not a Medical Doctor. He is an osteopath. Yes, this is a doctorate program at Georgetown and other universities. What osteopathy concerns itself with is the interaction of joints, muscles and bones as the goal and cause of good health. As the average reader can see, this study of medicine has lots to do with how Splenda may or may not affect the thyroid, the liver, the kidneys and other organs. Which means while I'm sure he did well in some of his classes, this is outside of his specialty. This is akin to a real estate lawyer making lots of comment on internet copyright law. Sure, he or she knows law, but there is a reason you have people who went to school for a specialty. For example, a nephrologist would be better qualified to talk about kidneys, a hematologist would better talking about the liver, or at least an internist. This would be great if I had a problem with my knee (wait. . .I do) that I knew there was no way it could be connected to anything internal (I don't know that. For all I know, this could be a problem with meniscus or muscle infarction, leading to cell death and nerve damage.)
All this in mind, the doctor does bring up an interesting point about testing. Notably, there is not enough of it. Digging through the internets, there are only 19 verified tests out there about the possible dangers of Splenda. The problem is, most of these tests were performed on animals, as opposed to humans, and they were sponsored by the company that produces Splenda. There has been precious little independent study on this. There are also conflicting reports about what the effects of chlorifcation of the sucrose does. After all, it's often done to table salt. Whether or not that would be the same is hard to say. The joys of chemistry.
What is clear about Splenda is that there has not been enough testing done. Aspartame has had over 1000 studies done and has been shown to be toxic to animals if fed to them in really large doses. Some claim Splenda is somehow more toxic to humans than animals, even though the amounts ingested are usually less (do you ingest one gram per kilogram of body weight?) and in just about every other study known to man, humans have kick ass immune system when it comes to other drugs and chemicals. The problem is there are too many random accusations flying around out there and not enough hard, conclusive studies done. We need more studies so we can make real decisions.
And what could be sweeter than more information?
So is is written, so do I see it.
PS anyone know how to paragraph in HTML? I lost my book and I know people can tell me faster than I can look it up.
Well, one of those leading the charge against Splenda is Dr. Joseph Mercola, author of a couple of health books and is the darling of anti-establishment health gurus. The good doctor goes into his dislike for Splenda here and attacks the studies that have been quoted when proponents claim it is healthful (not healthy, a person is healthy, a thing is healthful). He notes that only 36 humans were tested for splenda effects and "worse" only 23 of them were actually given the real deal (aside: wouldn't this be a time NOT to use sugarpill as a placebo?). Apparently, the learned healer forgot the basis for any good medical experiment, the control group. He points out that the studies were short term and didn't test for human tolerance to sucralose, only for tooth decay. He points out any number of other statistics on his page and finding the sources is a problem. And there is something about the doctor. He's not an MD.
Dr. Joseph Mercola is not a Medical Doctor. He is an osteopath. Yes, this is a doctorate program at Georgetown and other universities. What osteopathy concerns itself with is the interaction of joints, muscles and bones as the goal and cause of good health. As the average reader can see, this study of medicine has lots to do with how Splenda may or may not affect the thyroid, the liver, the kidneys and other organs. Which means while I'm sure he did well in some of his classes, this is outside of his specialty. This is akin to a real estate lawyer making lots of comment on internet copyright law. Sure, he or she knows law, but there is a reason you have people who went to school for a specialty. For example, a nephrologist would be better qualified to talk about kidneys, a hematologist would better talking about the liver, or at least an internist. This would be great if I had a problem with my knee (wait. . .I do) that I knew there was no way it could be connected to anything internal (I don't know that. For all I know, this could be a problem with meniscus or muscle infarction, leading to cell death and nerve damage.)
All this in mind, the doctor does bring up an interesting point about testing. Notably, there is not enough of it. Digging through the internets, there are only 19 verified tests out there about the possible dangers of Splenda. The problem is, most of these tests were performed on animals, as opposed to humans, and they were sponsored by the company that produces Splenda. There has been precious little independent study on this. There are also conflicting reports about what the effects of chlorifcation of the sucrose does. After all, it's often done to table salt. Whether or not that would be the same is hard to say. The joys of chemistry.
What is clear about Splenda is that there has not been enough testing done. Aspartame has had over 1000 studies done and has been shown to be toxic to animals if fed to them in really large doses. Some claim Splenda is somehow more toxic to humans than animals, even though the amounts ingested are usually less (do you ingest one gram per kilogram of body weight?) and in just about every other study known to man, humans have kick ass immune system when it comes to other drugs and chemicals. The problem is there are too many random accusations flying around out there and not enough hard, conclusive studies done. We need more studies so we can make real decisions.
And what could be sweeter than more information?
So is is written, so do I see it.
PS anyone know how to paragraph in HTML? I lost my book and I know people can tell me faster than I can look it up.